A New Kind of Royal Engagement

           With Prince Harry's engagement to American actress Meghan Markle, there was a lot of talk about everything from her previous marriage to her religion, but the most prominent topic of discussion was about her race. Following the news of their engagement there was talk that she was a symbol of hope for the end of racism in Britain, while other articles countered that stating that her marriage into the royal family means little when it comes to the current societal issues regarding race. The first article I encountered was from The Guardian, and it followed along the lines of the first reaction I mentioned above. In this article the author first introduces the topic with a history lesson on the relationship between race and the royal family. She does this to point out to readers how big of a step it is in her eyes, and should be in others, that there is a royal engagement with a biracial woman. She uses the past as a way to further her argument that Markle's entrance into the royal family is a significant step in the right direction, and she also discusses the royal family's symbol in British culture and how they represent the "antithesis of diversity." Her language in this article is very direct and she doesn't skirt around calling out the racism in other peoples' comments and articles, which makes her piece much more powerful and persuasive.  Meanwhile, the other article I read, by NBC News, also pointed out the racist reactions to the engagement, the author argued that it should not be seen as a milestone in the fight against racism in Britain. The author of this article directly quotes people on their opinions and reasons that agree with her argument, and she explains who they are and their relevance to the discussion. This addition to her article, in my mind, is a really great way to convince readers of her point and make her sound credible and justified in her reasoning. The author uses real statistics on the black population in Britain to prove her point of their being a large black minority, and she doesn't skit around directly laying out the facts.
           What made the examination of these two articles so interesting to me was that they were using very similar language, and that was the opposite of what we focused on in class. The authors were both very direct and didn't avoid being straight out with what they said, and that was fascinating to me because it proved a useful method of persuasion on both sides of the discussion. Both articles provide an interesting take on the engagement and insight on the black community in Britain. The authors' abilities to state facts in a way that makes them meaningful and powerful is what really brings agreement from readers. The way they were successful in persuasion was evident to me because I couldn't decide which author I agreed with, and have to say that both their arguments were credible and seemingly well-founded. From seeing the tactics of both authors I've come to see that in order to convince readers of your point you don't necessarily need to use the sneaky tactics we discussed in class, sometimes being direct and putting it all out their is the best was to persuade someone.

Sources:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/meghan-markle-engagement-prince-harry-exposes-quiet-racism-n825516
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/27/prince-harry-meghan-markle-britishness-monarchy-relevant